This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot after 1 month of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 75K in size, a new one is automatically created. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Blaine Cooper was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 January 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
On 2016-01-04, Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was linked from Google News (main page), a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
@ NorthBySouthBaranof:, @ BudJillett:, @ MB298:, I think this article could benefit from autoconfirmed editor page protection. The last two edits that were made by IP editor 67.169.209.150, from the vicinity of Corvallis, OR, were vandalism, otherwise known as "good faith" here at Wikipedia. The six prior IP edits were made by an edit warring IP editor from the vicinity of Dover, N.H. Activist ( talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, use of the term "seized" rather than "occupied" in the lede is a far more accurate descriptor of what happened at Malheur. I am reminded of the term, as defined in Wiktionary, "terminate with extreme prejudice" which was substituted for the accurate "assassinate," "execute" or "murder" during the Viet Nam war. Activist ( talk) 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There having been no additional comments, I went ahead and changed "seized" to "seized and occupied". NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've read differing accounts about which officers fired which shots. In the trial of FBI Agent Astarita, however, the account is sworn testimony. It said that "Officer 1" who was at the fatal roadblock, fired three shots with an AR-15 into Finicum's truck, then two into his back, after he got out of his truck. Then another, "Officer 2," also fired, hitting Finicum in his back at the same time. Activist ( talk) 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Alan G. Archer:, @ Parsley Man:, @ LavaBaron:, @ NewsAndEventsGuy:, @ Neutrality:, @ Kgstewart1:, @ Bondegezou:, @ Prioryman:, @ Scottperry: Dear Wikipedia editors who worked on this article. I think it is an example of excellent collaboration to produce an article that does justice to the aims of Wikipedia. I'm pinging those editors who comprised the "top ten" in terms of their additions to the articles, without singling out any individual from that list. In addition to the content, I particularly liked the layout, with which I had little to do except for a minor change. Activist ( talk) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This was just floating at the top of the article with no context.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Over time, this article has progressed towards making the bias tone of this entry the norm. Which is a problem regarding specific topics across Wikipedia. This article though, the introduction has changed as such since the creation of the entry in 2016:
"armed members of rump militias"
"armed group affiliated with the U.S. militia movement"
"armed standoff"
"armed occupation and standoff"
"armed militants"
"armed far right whites"
"armed group of far-right extremists"
For most people who pass by the entry, people who don't bother editing Wikipedia, the bias is glaringly obvious to them. And that's only one example from the introduction.
Any attempt to restore neutral language is met with a revision and then warnings about getting banned or blocked for edit warring. So the bias only gets increasingly worse as the phrasing on articles such as these progresses with the labels of the time. In a few months we'll see another biased labeling up there or additions to further insert personal bias that will be upheld as supposedly being "unbiased". This is why many (regardless of leanings) don't accept Wikipedia as a source. Entries like these, in time, are always written to fit around a "source" that conforms the political leanings of the most prolific editors. And if there is an alternate news reference to restore neutral designations of groups, individuals or otherwise, it is always replaced by a news reference to restore the biased tone. There isn't a discussion to be had on this. That is exactly what happens.
Zeph1 (
talk) 03:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of the term "far-right" in connection with these groups. Considering "fascism" is described as "far-right" as well, and that being a system in which the State itself is the moral actor in the world, and all private interests being subordinate to the will of the State, I fail to see how the Sovereign Citizen Movement and other anti-government ideologies can also be lumped together with the same label. They seem like polar opposites to me, don't you think? 173.165.136.242 ( talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
United States Law Enforcement entities are shown as affiliated with a political party while the perpetrators of the occupation are shown with an imitation American flag. This is misleading and an attempt to inject political agenda. 75.183.176.7 ( talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot after 1 month of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 75K in size, a new one is automatically created. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Blaine Cooper was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 January 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
On 2016-01-04, Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was linked from Google News (main page), a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
@ NorthBySouthBaranof:, @ BudJillett:, @ MB298:, I think this article could benefit from autoconfirmed editor page protection. The last two edits that were made by IP editor 67.169.209.150, from the vicinity of Corvallis, OR, were vandalism, otherwise known as "good faith" here at Wikipedia. The six prior IP edits were made by an edit warring IP editor from the vicinity of Dover, N.H. Activist ( talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, use of the term "seized" rather than "occupied" in the lede is a far more accurate descriptor of what happened at Malheur. I am reminded of the term, as defined in Wiktionary, "terminate with extreme prejudice" which was substituted for the accurate "assassinate," "execute" or "murder" during the Viet Nam war. Activist ( talk) 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There having been no additional comments, I went ahead and changed "seized" to "seized and occupied". NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've read differing accounts about which officers fired which shots. In the trial of FBI Agent Astarita, however, the account is sworn testimony. It said that "Officer 1" who was at the fatal roadblock, fired three shots with an AR-15 into Finicum's truck, then two into his back, after he got out of his truck. Then another, "Officer 2," also fired, hitting Finicum in his back at the same time. Activist ( talk) 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Alan G. Archer:, @ Parsley Man:, @ LavaBaron:, @ NewsAndEventsGuy:, @ Neutrality:, @ Kgstewart1:, @ Bondegezou:, @ Prioryman:, @ Scottperry: Dear Wikipedia editors who worked on this article. I think it is an example of excellent collaboration to produce an article that does justice to the aims of Wikipedia. I'm pinging those editors who comprised the "top ten" in terms of their additions to the articles, without singling out any individual from that list. In addition to the content, I particularly liked the layout, with which I had little to do except for a minor change. Activist ( talk) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This was just floating at the top of the article with no context.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Over time, this article has progressed towards making the bias tone of this entry the norm. Which is a problem regarding specific topics across Wikipedia. This article though, the introduction has changed as such since the creation of the entry in 2016:
"armed members of rump militias"
"armed group affiliated with the U.S. militia movement"
"armed standoff"
"armed occupation and standoff"
"armed militants"
"armed far right whites"
"armed group of far-right extremists"
For most people who pass by the entry, people who don't bother editing Wikipedia, the bias is glaringly obvious to them. And that's only one example from the introduction.
Any attempt to restore neutral language is met with a revision and then warnings about getting banned or blocked for edit warring. So the bias only gets increasingly worse as the phrasing on articles such as these progresses with the labels of the time. In a few months we'll see another biased labeling up there or additions to further insert personal bias that will be upheld as supposedly being "unbiased". This is why many (regardless of leanings) don't accept Wikipedia as a source. Entries like these, in time, are always written to fit around a "source" that conforms the political leanings of the most prolific editors. And if there is an alternate news reference to restore neutral designations of groups, individuals or otherwise, it is always replaced by a news reference to restore the biased tone. There isn't a discussion to be had on this. That is exactly what happens.
Zeph1 (
talk) 03:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of the term "far-right" in connection with these groups. Considering "fascism" is described as "far-right" as well, and that being a system in which the State itself is the moral actor in the world, and all private interests being subordinate to the will of the State, I fail to see how the Sovereign Citizen Movement and other anti-government ideologies can also be lumped together with the same label. They seem like polar opposites to me, don't you think? 173.165.136.242 ( talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
United States Law Enforcement entities are shown as affiliated with a political party while the perpetrators of the occupation are shown with an imitation American flag. This is misleading and an attempt to inject political agenda. 75.183.176.7 ( talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)